Posted on 02/22/2005 5:18:12 AM PST by beaureguard
I know you've grown tired of hearing me hammer this point home ... but in the history of civilization no culture based on freedom and economic liberty has survived without recognizing the individual's right to property and zealously protecting those rights. For many years now property rights have been under a clear assault from politicians seeking to solidify their positions of privilege and power through the misuse of eminent domain. Unfortunately, as has been documented numerous times in this space and on the air, a new national epidemic has emerged. Politicians, hungry for tax revenues at all costs, have started to see private property rights as a small inconvenience. So if you're a farmer who doesn't want to sell his land to build a new Wal-Mart: look out. Government agents could confiscate your land under eminent domain, give it to Wal-Mart and oh by the way- they get to decide how much to pay you for it. It's happening all to often across this country.
We're going to learn a lot in the next few months about the freedom of economic liberty in America. One of these hideous eminent domain cases is now in the U.S. Supreme Court. A New London, Connecticut case of eminent domain abuse goes before the Supreme Court today, finally bringing national attention to the growing problem of government land grabs in the name of private developers. It's about time.
Eminent domain is a holdout from the old English common law. The purpose of eminent domain was to acquire property for public uses like schools, highways, police or fire stations and the like. We've gone far beyond that now.
Which brings us to today's case before the United States Supreme Court. On one side, you have the government of New London, Connecticut. They argue that confiscating land and selling it to a private developer under eminent domain serves the public good because it provides much-needed government revenue. Don't you think that you should read that again? This city is saying that a person's right to their property ends when the government figures out that that property in the hands of another private owner would generate more tax revenue. When does this concept arrive at the doorstep of your local city council or county commission? How do you like the idea that your home is yours only so long as some developer doesn't convince a politician that if he could get his hands on that property he would build something that would be so much more valuable and pay many more dollars in taxes? What country do we live in again?
The basic facts of the case are that pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed to build a $270 million global research facility in New London in 1998. The developers wanted to build a conference center, hotel complex, offices, condos, etc. adjacent to the facility. Some of the homeowners didn't want to move. No problem, the government posted notices on their doors telling them they had four months to get out or police would remove them and their belongings.
It went all the way to the Connecticut Supreme Court, which sided with New London. Now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, the case is called Kelo v. City of New London, Case Number 04-0108. A decision is expected in June. Keep an eye on this one. The decision made in this case will determine whether or not we truly live in a free society that respects property rights.
Boortz Ping!
If you want on or off the occasional Boortz Ping, FRmail me and let me know.
"This city is saying that a person's right to their property ends when the government figures out that that property in the hands of another private owner would generate more tax revenue."
This one sentence nails it. How is the greater good being served when basic rights are being compromised. This is abuse of power at the local level plain and simple. There needs to be a check & balance so one entity isn't making all of the decisions.
Boortz is awesome.
Having this case before the current court is a scary thing. Really scary.
Slippery slope doesn't begin to describe it....
May the high court have the wisdom to vote to stop this cruel abuse.
It is despicable this case has gotten this far. I hope like hell these people win & can keep their homes. That being said, If they lose, I hope my company gets the development contract.
What's the difference between these abuses and government imposed smoking bans? Socialism is as Fascism does!
If that is not clear, abuse will always be with us. It is very simple. The only thing necessary for an unjust society to exist is an endless supply of unjust and abusive bureaucrats.
Every society manages to have a reliable supply of them.
You really dont own property any more. The Government allows you to use it. I live in a place that is under what is called a critical area because of the Chesapeake Bay. I cant cut a tree on my own property without permission from the government and if they allow me to cut that one they can tell me how many I have to plant in order to make up for it. Not only that they tell me the size and type of trees they have to be. I cannot build a deck onto my house or add a toilet without permission. You call this property rights? No property rights are long gone, this is just another step in the wrong direction.
From your mouth to God's ear. And AMEN too!
My guess is Thomas and Scalia will do the right thing, but the rest are unpredictable. My guess is it will be a 5-4 decision, but not sure which way it will break.
Like they did with McCain/Feingold?
By the way, for anyone who's interested, the briefs are posted at http://www.abanet.org/publiced/preview/briefs/feb05.html#kelo
The Petitioners' brief is up, and the Respondent's brief should be up soon. It doesn't look like anyone has filed an amicus.
bump
The difference is that these abuses go one step beyond smoking bans. Smoking bans tell you what you cannot do on personal private property. In this case the government is trying to take away that private property. Not that I agree with either of them.
Blatant abuse of power
Yep, you can only count on 3 votes, getting the other 2 will be roll of the dice. It will most likely be a 5-4 ruling, but who knows which way it will go. The swing vote may decide on the basis of "international law".
This case should have never gotten this far. If this doesn't get a u-vote, then we're doomed.
No, Rhenquist, Thomas, and Scalia will be solid on the side of property rights. It will likely come down to the usual duo of O'Connor and Kennedy to decide which way this case goes.
Ping
I read an article about this case yesterday - the lefty socialists are in near panic mode over it.
I'm not a lawyer, I don't play one on TV, and I did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.........but judging from that particular article, and the panic of the socialists, if the USSC sides with the homeowners on this one - smoking bans can and will be overturned.
This is definitely a case to watch.....for MANY reasons.
Anyone from Hawaii reading this thread?
Seems I remember some unusual property ownership conflicts exist in our 50th State. Something about titles being invalid because the original sale/transfer was not done by the former Kingdom of Hawaii. Is this just one of them urban legends?
There is no difference. When you are not free to use your property, as intended, then it is no longer your property. (Just clarifying)
property rights bump
What watch dog groups are out there to battle this?
Didn't Russia take private property for the good of all under the name of socialism?
Just be glad you don't have coal on your land. You'd really find out about government rules.
Agreed. They have not been a font of wisdom lately. To me this is a watershed issue in America civil liberties. Without this right, every house is the equivalent of an Indian reservation in the 1800's, existing at the whim of capricious goverment officials.
Someone should find out where the justices live and condemn their houses so they can build hotels and mini-malls. It might be persuasive. I've been eyeing Bader Ginsburg's digs as the site for another Starbucks.
I totally agree.
Because the High Court have gotten use to trampling on the rights of average Americans, and can no longer be trusted with the welfare of the people, the definition of Eminent Domain needs to be revised by the Congress.
Do you have the ability to provide a link to that article? I would be very interested in reading more information....
I don't know. I'd be glad to learn of one.
It seems that some local government entities are doing this solely to increase their tax revenues so they are looking out for their best interests over that of the individual. I don't like the idea of government competing (ha!) against an individual citizen for something of value.
Just like when they voided the 1st Amendment with CFR.
I have little faith in the court doing the right thing.
Will they? I hope so. But I wouldn't bet on it. And I love to gamble.
It was an LA Times article that was posted here yesterday.....and off the top of my head I can't think of the headline.
Sorry.
Government can't deny you the right to build an addition onto your house. The regulation denying you the right to build must have some kind of relation to public use or public safety. The regulation can't be arbitrary and capricious, nor can it be a regulation to simply achieve a land planning goal.
Here's the USSC Dolan test when looking at regulations applied to private property -
In a nutshell, Dolan tells local and state governments four things:
- One, don’t arbitrarily take private property as a condition for a permit or zoning. That’s a “taking” under the 5th amendment and governments must pay the private property owner compensation. This common sense principle was firmly set in a previous court ruling and reaffirmed in this case.
- Two, if governments demand a tribute (exaction) for a development or permit, it must be reasonable and a rough equivalent to remedy matters relevant to the public interest, such as safety. In other words, governments can’t overreach and make demands on property owners that go beyond the public interest. Nor may it demand a tribute not related to the proposed private development. The court calls this concept “rough proportionality.”
- Three, government must look at the public purposes the exaction (a requirement or demand) is meant to remedy. Then it must determine whether that is indeed a legitimate public interest. And it must determine that the proposed development somehow affects that public interest. The court calls this the “essential nexus.”
- Four, the Court said the burden of proof is now on the government to justify its proposed dedications on private property.
(I'm not an attorney but play one on my property.)
There was a story I read a year or so back about the same thing happening in N.J. along the coastline with the local government taking beach front homes to build a tourist area, I'll try to find it.
It almost seems that in addition to the market value of the property, the estimated increased income stream (in tax revenue) to the government should be factored into and included with the compensation to the victim, oops, I mean individual. If the government can't gain monetarily from the theft, they will have no motivation to do it.
That would be the right thing to do but that is not what they're interested in. Hey, if they wanted to rip my house down, pay me triple its value, and cut me in on the profits gained by the businesses that create establishments on this site then I have no problem....I think....that also could come back to haunt me somehow.
My crystal ball says this will not affect smoking bans one iota. But then it gets kinda smokey so ? :^)
There is also a story in NJ regarding WalMart and eminant domaine, Mt. Laurel IIRC. So far the residents are winning. I am guessing there are a lot of private corporations watching this decision VERY closely. My guess, I hate to say it, but Pfizer will prevail and all our property rights go down the tube.
If brains were gunpowder, this Court wouldn't have enough to blow their own noses. I'm hoping they surprise me and come down on the side of the Property Owners. That this would BE a surprise is a measure of how far we have fallen as a Free Country.
There's the rub. If Pfizer had really wanted this land, they would have offered the current owners enough money to entice them to sell. Instead, they're relying on government to save them money when it comes to purchasing this property.
I hope to the Gods I'm wrong...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.